Video: T-90M Tank Vs Land Rover

So uh, how often do you see a brand new luxury SUV facing off against the latest in Russian tank tech? This video after the jump shows some Russian dude racing a Land Rover Discovery 4 against what looks like the new T-90M tank (though the video says its a T-90S). Both are very slick-looking machines and it’s a fun video even if, like me, you have no clue what the Russian guy is saying.

Click through the jump for the video and more info on the T-90M tank.

Here’s more info about the T-90M.

  • Endyr

    Russian Top Gear?

    • http://www.facebook.com/arduino.mega Roy Cohen

      hahahahh thats exactly what i was thinking top gear is awesome

      • Robsleg

        Yes, TG video is good : http://www.streetfire.net/video/top-gear-range-ro…

  • A. Nonymous

    My guess: it’s from the Russian adaptation of Top Gear. BBC’s Top Gear did a similar segment using a Land Rover and a Challenger MBT a couple of years ago.

  • doyletoo

    Uhh, I”m guessing the guy driving the Land Rover has never been a tanker. Walking under the barrel is a bad idea. Even with a helmet. It can come down quicker than you realize and make it a permanent bad hair day for you. Still neat to see the T90. I am a little perplexed why the front of the turret slopes down and up. Can you say “bullet trap”?
    Hits below the center line will be force downward onto the top of the hull, historically one of the spots on tanks with thinnest armor…:)

    • SJE

      Thats a good point, but, then again, the Russians have a helluva lot of experience at making tanks. Industrial production, not so good, but they have turned out some good designs. All I am saying is that I wouldn’t discount crazy ivan.

  • Earle

    a SINGLE bullet puts THAT tank out of operation [ fuel tank mounted in rear ] !

    • blackphoenixillustrations

      A single bullet will not ignite those fuel tanks. You could riddle those things with tracer rounds and they would not catch fire. It’s been proven several times that just firing at a tank of gasoline (Diesel, in this case) would not light it up. High octane aviation fuel and jet fuel are different stories, but if you can’t ignite gasoline with tracers, you won’t ignite diesel.

      • blight

        But in the movies….!

      • So?

        I thought jet fuel is low octane?

        • blight

          Russians are diesel-lovers.

        • blackphoenixillustrations

          I’m talking about prop planes. At least in WWII they ran on 110 octane.

          • So?

            Yeah, OK. BTW, I’ve been told that one of the reasons Germany pushed turbine development was that they hard trouble producing high octane gas.

    • Morgan

      What computer game taught you that?

  • Lance

    The T-90 is just a renamed late model T-72 which has a crappy record in combat. In some aspects it modernization has added some good features to a bad design like more sloped armor and better fire control. Over all in a tank to tank comparison in capability T-90 vs T-84, the Ukrainian design come ahead dramatically as a M1 killer for the east European arsenal.

    • Stratege

      T-72 is a succesfull, viable design and very reliable tank. It does not matter how badly the “monkey models” of T-72’s(which were based on the early T-72A, equipped with training/obsolete ammunition, w/o some standard equipment) performed in Iraq against most modern Western tank.
      Ukrainian T-84 is interesting tank. It’s redesigned T-80 tank, which is known for its pros and cons. T-80 was proved as less reliable and less survival tank(due its autoloader desing) compared to the late T-72 and T-90, but with faster speed, better mobility and FCS(against the T-72B)..
      T-84’s elecronic equipment appears to be superior to the T-72B (1985) and to the early T-90(T-90A), roughly on par with T-90S. But T-84’s hardware is considerably inferior compared to the T-90M, especially in terms of FCS (optics, thermal-imaging cameras, ballistic computer, automatically target tracking capability, hunter-killer mode), firepower (non-export T-90AM should get the most modern 125mm gun and new types of SABOT, ATGMs, significantly improved ballistic), communication system, sattelite navigation system, integrated T-BMS feature. T-84 simply lacks some of these T-90M’s features or generation behind.

      • Mastro

        “It does not matter how badly the “monkey models” of T-72’s(which were based on the early T-72A, equipped with training/obsolete ammunition, w/o some standard equipment) performed in Iraq against most modern Western tank.”

        Sorry- but that Russian salesman line only goes so far-

        The Israelis were blowing Russian tanks away with upgunned Shermans in the ’70’s- so I really don’t buy that the T72 couldn’t compete.

        T72’s were being destroyed in the early ’80’s by the Israelis- how could the export version be obsolete only 10 years after the Russians got them?

        • SJE

          I don’t know how much it was the tanks versus training. The Israelis were well trained and led, and motivated for the fight of their lives (literally) and were up against poorly trained, poorly led forces, with equipment that was probably not well maintained.

          • Lance

            The T-72 also has a auto-loader. The T-84 is upgraded and is same if not better than a crappy T-90 which itself is a T-72 with T-80U fire control in it. Sorry Stratege but the T-72/90 have failed time and again in combat and I think Russia is going for Quantity over quality, due to cost cuts in Army budget a few years ago. Ukraine has Quality over Quantity approach and has kept there new T-84 up to date and updated T-80s as well. They retired most of there T-72s, even the T-64 is still in service over the T-72.

            Besides that the T-72 has a height and size maximum for its crew and that made problems for the Russian army for some time.

          • Commisar12

            ah, but the T-84 had unknown armor quality, no Kontakt-5 ERA, no Shorta active protection, and only 49 or so exported so fat (to Thailand) Also, the T-72 crew height requirement is pretty much BS. All tanks are cramped inside, some (usually Russian or Chinese) moreso than others. Also, the T-84 is JUST as cramped as the T-90. If Poles, Yugoslavs, Egyptians, Serbians, Indians and Syrians can put enough tankers into their T-72s with no size problems, then so can everyone else.

          • jhm

            I dnt know about you, but im pretty sure everyone in battle is fighting for their lives ya know. just saying.

        • crackedlenses

          Strat’s already stated that the Ruskies never sell the high-end models; that’s the reason Russian tanks are always taking a beating when in use with other armies….

          • Chuck

            They didn’t do so well in Afghanistan or Chechnya. In fact, they complained how the internal ammo always blew the turrets off when hit. They may have learned this lesson with newer models, but most of their stuff is older crap. The newest, most up to date version probably is good, but they likely won’t buy enough to make a difference.

        • Stratege

          Mastro wrote
          “The Israelis were blowing Russian tanks away with upgunned Shermans in the ’70’s- so I really don’t buy that the T72 couldn’t compete.”

          Don’t buy israel’s war propaganda (at least don’t trust everything they claim). For example, most of destroyed Syrian T-72s were ambushed and destroyed by TOW at-missiles, not by another tanks.

          Also take in consideration that:

          - Not every destroyed Soviet designed tank had identification as an T-72 model .

          - There a lot of questions how these Soviet made tanks were used by arabs and there are lot of questions what was a situation prior to the their combat use.

          - Those T-72s were stripped-down models with a major differences from domestic Soviet models of that time. The most critical shortages of export oriented T-72s: worst (export) armor, inferior(export) optics, inferior (export) ammunition.

    • So?

      One may be better than the other, but it’s not a generational leap like M60 -> M1. Upgraded to the gills both can stand up to an M1A2, while paying the price on ergonomics and post-penetration survivability. But are they pretty much maxed out as far as upgrades go, while the M1 series still has a lot of upgrade potential. For example, the autoloader puts a hard limit on APFSDS penetrator length. Yes, you can stick a new autoloader in the turret bustle, maybe upgun, but you might as well start with a clean sheet. This is why the Russian Defense Ministry is cool on these umpteenth versions of same-old, same-old. They want a new *platform* which is modular, upgradeable and adaptable, and is good for at least 30 years (kinda like the FCS). The RU defense sector is naturally resisting, because a *new new* platform would need a new drivetrain to warrant the name: modern powerpack, automatic transmission, hydropneumatic suspension. They simply can’t provide these things. The RU Army has plenty of T-72B’s and T-80s in storage anyway. These can be upgraded almost to the level of the T-90, if need be.

      (Disclaimer: this armchair general does not believe tanks are all that important anymore. The latest KE rounds cost almost $8,000 and serve a single purpose. I believe JDAM kits are under $20,000 and 1000 lb bombs can kill lots of things.)

  • Stratege

    Ukrainian T-84 is a good T-80’s upgrade on paper, but it’s not proven yet as viable design because of it’s ridiculously low production rate (<10 produced). Also, there a lot of question about its reliability (chassis especially), the quality of domestic made gun and how stong its armor armor in reality. So, Ukrainian tank is nothing special and shouldn't be ahead of the latest T-90M overall. The only noticiable T-84's advantages over the T-90M are a bit better mobility and more powerful engine. That's all.
    M1A... Well, that's another story. "Abrams" have a much different design philosophy with its pos and cons.

  • Jeff

    I was halfway expecting it to end like a propaganda piece… with soviet muscle litterally crushing “this symbol of western capitalism.”

  • Morty

    Well I think we all know that communist russia is gone even if they still hate the West.
    If we get into another conflict Its going to be Pakistan. Their so pissed of that we bombed their troops.

    • Commisar12

      yeah, Russia is going to have so MASSIE poulation issue in the next decade or so. With a low birthrate, falling population, and an AIDS epidemic, they won’t be able to field large armies much longer.

    • Russian

      Russians hate no one. Peace:)))

  • Statege

    Lance wrote:
    “The T-72 also has a auto-loader. ”

    The T-72 has a autoloader of much different desing (a.k.a. “AZ”), which is much less vulnerable compared to the T-80’s autoloader (a.k.a.”MZ” under the turret). So the tanks of T-72/T-90 series are more survible than T-80’s in the case of armor penetration. There are very low chances for detonation of the T-72/T-90’s ammunition cassette (placed on the floor of the tank). The most dangerous/explosive ammunition is the optional, extra ammuntion(for handheld reloading into autoloader) in the crew comparment. In the case of new T-90M’s, extra ammunition was moved to the stowage compartment fully separated from crew compartment for additional survivability.

    Lance wrote:
    “The T-84 is upgraded and is same if not better than a crappy T-90 which itself is a T-72 with T-80U fire control in it.”

    In comparison with the T-90M, T-84 has a ancient electronics and FCS, poorly made domestic gun. The Ukrainian ERA which is not yet proven unlike the Russian “Relikt” ERA(T-90M).
    The chassis of Ukrainian tank is unreliable with a some of flaws in its design. That’s because T-84’s weight is more than the chassis of T-80U(which is T-84 based on) can hold for reliable operation. T-84 still is not appears too be viable design. As i said before, the only noticiable T-84’s advantages over the T-90M are a bit better mobility and more powerful engine. And notging more.

  • Stratege

    Chuck wrote
    “They didn’t do so well in Afghanistan or Chechnya.”

    Don’t known much about Afghanistan.
    But, actually, the reports from Chechnya (first campaign especially) were very varied.
    There were reports that T-72B have widthstand a few RPG-7 hits without any serious penetration, ammunition explosion and KIA.

    Chuck wrote
    ” In fact, they complained how the internal ammo always blew the turrets off when hit.”

    No, it’s not the fact. The explosion is possible but not guaranteed.
    Extra ammunition in the crew compartment causes 90% of POSSIBLE blew the turret off.

    Chuck wrote
    “They may have learned this lesson with newer models, but most of their stuff is older crap. The newest, most up to date version probably is good, but they likely won’t buy enough to make a difference. ”

    AFAIK, several hundreds of T-90s were purchased by Russian army.

  • nbaTT

    A translation wouldve been nice…

  • UST

    Way for the russians to copy British Top Gear……

  • http://seoservicesuk.me/ affordable search engine optimization